Yesterday the Department of Justice rolled out a new online technical assistance webpage that cleans up a lot of the organizational problems I’ve blogged about in the past.* You can find it here. It isn’t perfect. You might wonder why, for example, we still have both a “Primer for Small Business” and a “Guide for Small Businesses” as well as two different documents concerning service animals. DOJ’s habit of publishing one topic guidances can be helpful, but the failure to consistently integrate them into more comprehensive documents makes it hard for businesses to have a single consistent place to go when they need information. We really need a well organized on-line encyclopedia of ADA guidance in plain language so that a business looking for a particular answer doesn’t have to guess which of the many available on-line documents will have it. It is also notable that DOJ still has materials written before the publication of the 2010 Standards as well as materials concerning communication that are more than 15 years old and therefore very likely to be out of date in light of technological developments.

Still, the re-organization is a welcome change and should be of some benefit to businesses interesting in maintaining ADA compliance without necessarily calling a lawyer.

The latest iteration of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines became effective with the publication of version 2.1. on June 5, 2018. The newest version adds an additional 17 success criteria for compliance with WCAG, 12 of which are part of success level 2, the level that has become a de facto standard for the ADA.* I’ve shared my thoughts on how this may change the ADA litigation landscape with Usablenet, which just published its overview of the changes in “New Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 – What When How.” In this blog I’d like to consider the deeper questions posed by this revision: Who gets to decide what discrimination means?

It is worthwhile to start with a look at the stated purpose of the ADA itself. The declaration of policy in 42 U.S.C. §12101 never uses the word “accessible” and refers to “access” only with respect to public services. The focus of the ADA is discrimination, and standards for accessibility are only part of Congress’ intent to “to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” (42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(2)). More

The ADA played a typically minor role in the recent election. Democrats made it clear they were for the disabled but did not propose specific new programs. Republicans barely mentioned the disabled except for a brief controversy involving Trump mocking a disabled reporter. With disability rights playing such a minor role in Republican politics one might think that Trump’s election means no change, but in fact a Trump presidency may lead to a significant narrowing of the ADA’s application and reduced federal enforcement action. More

Reading the daily update I get on disability law issues I was struck by this sentence from an article published on August 8 in the Daily Courier from Prescott Arizona:

“The Arizona Legislature altered laws this year that govern those service animals, specifically allowing businesses, especially restaurants, to tell an owner the animal must be removed if it is out of control or not housebroken.”

(Click here for complete article). This is interesting because the “altered law” does not appear to change anything. Under both the ADA and its Arizona equivalent businesses have always been entitled to exclude service animals that are out of control or not housebroken. Other details in the new law are also consistent with existing federal regulations concerning service animals. More

Tens of millions of dollars are wasted each year on litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The money is wasted because instead of going directly to improvements that make businesses more accessible, the money goes to lawyers. Diverting money from remediation to litigation is the real tragedy of so called “drive-by” lawsuits.

.

Every couple of years Congress tries to fix this problem with legislation that would require notice before the filing of an ADA lawsuit. There are three such bills pending in the current session. The most sophisticated, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 3765), includes provisions that would help educate businesses about their ADA obligations. This kind of legislative effort has always failed in the past, and there seems little reason to think that the current Congress will be able to do anything this time around.

.

When there are a string of local lawsuits state and local government also try get involved, usually with similar efforts to require pre-suit notice. Of course these efforts fail from the outset because the ADA is a federal law and states cannot interfere with its enforcement mechanism.

.

Can anything be done? Well, the real problem with the various legislative initiatives is that lawsuits feed on the existence of barriers to access. Plaintiffs’ lawyers I have dealt with tell me that even when they send demand letters more than half are simply ignored by businesses that don’t understand the law or their legal obligations. Given this level of ignorance, and the fact that a plaintiff can easily find 30 or 40 ADA violations just driving around for a weekend, merely requiring a pre-suit demand will do little to reduce the number of lawsuits.

.

The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015 starts to get at this problem with its provisions calling for the development by the DOJ of an education program, but the mandate is not funded, and past efforts by DOJ to educate small businesses have largely failed. Twenty-five years after the passage of the ADA the number of ADA lawsuits continues to climb, which is proof enough that top down education efforts without any funding will never improve ADA compliance or eliminate wasteful litigation.

.

What we need instead is work by local chambers of commerce and municipal governments that focuses not on general education but on finding specific common ADA violations so they can be fixed before lawsuits are filed. The best way to do this is to adopt the same tactics used by serial litigants. With minimal training (see our page on Education for Business) police and employees responsible for code enforcement can spot common accessible parking problems. An official notice, even if not accompanied by the threat of a fine, should be enough to get most businesses to look seriously at ADA compliance. Chambers of Commerce can enlist volunteers to do the same thing. Compliance will come from education, but the education will be local, responding to the real needs of local businesses.

.

This kind of program does not require any kind of extensive ADA training or survey. The reason lawsuits from serial litigants are sometimes referred to as “drive-by” lawsuits is that the plaintiffs literally just drive around looking for non-compliant handicapped parking. If the parking at a business looks good they probably won’t even stop to see whether the rest of the facility is accessible. A business with parking that meets ADA standards will have eliminated most of the risk of a lawsuit and bought itself time for a proper survey and remediation of the interior of the premises.

.

The solution to the waste caused by serial litigation is to eliminate ADA violations, and that can be done most effectively when local governments and local chambers of commerce act directly to find violations and educate business owners about those violations. There is no need to wait for Congress to pass a bill that may be doomed anyway. The answer is local, not legal.